Item Number: 1
City Council / Board of Directors
Public Hearing(s)
Meeting of: February 18, 2025
Submitted By:
Alex Jauregui, City Planner
Subject:
An Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision regarding Planning Case No. PLAN23- 00003 – A Site Plan with a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow for the development of an approximately 400,000 square foot warehouse distribution building on two vacant M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoned parcels totaling approximately 18 acres located at the southwest corner of the logical extension of Cactus Road and Mesa Linda Avenue Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Open and conduct a public hearing, receiving testimony regarding the proposed appeal;
(2) Close the public hearing; and
(3) Adopt Resolution No. 25-015 – Affirming the Decision of the Planning Commission to approve Site Plan Case No. PLAN23-00003 as conditioned and finding that the project environmental analysis was appropriately assessed via a Mitigated Negative Declaration that includes mitigation measures to ensure the impacts on the environment and community are less than significant.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
Background:
On January 8, 2025, the Planning Commission unanimously (5-0) approved Case No.
PLAN23-00003 via the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. P-24-055 (Attachment E). The subject case was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission first on November 13th, 2024, then continued again on December 11th, 2024, to afford the applicant, Steeno Design Studio, Inc. time to address comments received during the CEQA review and public noticing process, which included comments received by the appellant, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. 4 0
0 9
The Planning Commission’s approval would allow for the development of an approximately 400,000 square foot industrial building for warehousing and distribution totaling 396,131 square feet, comprised of 381,198 sq. ft. allocated to warehouse space and 14,933 sq. ft. of ancillary office space. Site improvements will be comprised of 72 total truck dock positions, two grade doors, 91 trailer stalls, 178 auto parking stalls, and related site, landscaping, drainage, and street improvements. Inclusive of the projects design features to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts, conditions of approval were also contained within the project approval that ensure the impacts of the project on the environment and the community are less than significant.
On January 15, 2025, the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision (Attachment C), which appeals the entire decision of the Planning Commission, asserting the Commission did not adequately investigate nor mitigate the project and are of the belief the Planning Commission did not fulfill their duty to address the environmental, social, and economic burdens the project imposes on Victorville residents.
In response to the appeal filing, on February 3, 2025, the applicant’s legal counsel provided a written response (Attachment D) refuting the claims indicated by the appellant, noting, following an extensive and legally compliant review process the Planning Commission chose to approve the project through a transparent review, which included public notices, stakeholder input and expert analysis from project consultants and City staff.
Discussion:
Appeal Synopsis
An appeal has been filed by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) regarding Planning Department Case No. PLAN23-00003 (Attachment C), seeking to overturn the approval of the subject case, citing their belief that the environmental document contained “flaws” and the analysis failed to adequately address environmental, social and economic burdens placed on the City of Victorville and its residents. Further, the appellant asserts concerns raised by their firm in a comment letter dated October 31, 2024 (included within Attachment C), remain as the basis of their appeal, stating the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project was flawed and did not adequately evaluate the projects, air quality and health risk impacts and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared.
Appeal Response
Prior to the project’s Planning Commission public hearing on January 8 th, 2025, and in response to the comments received from GSEJA on October 31 st, 2024, the project applicant’s environmental consultant prepared a formal response to the concerns raised by GSEJA (see City Council Attachment F – “Planning Commission Attachment F”). This response refutes many of the claims in the opposition letter while also clarifying the 4 0
0 9
project’s compliance with CEQA mandates and the project’s conformance with local air quality regulations, while also responding to concerns raised regarding Environmental Justice. The response to comment was provided to the Planning Commission as a part of the project agenda item and was considered by the Planning Commission with the ultimate project approval.
Provided as Attachment D of this report, the project applicant’s legal representative has provided a response to the appeal filing indicating the applicant, the City and ultimately the Planning Commission conducted a thorough, transparent, and exhaustive environmental analysis that ultimately ensured the project and the community impacts as well as benefits were thoroughly evaluated, and the Planning Commission did not error in its decision. Further, this response highlights the appellant’s failure to attend or submit a formal opposition to the project before or during the Planning Commission’s January 8th hearing, which raises questions about the validity of the appeal.
Environmental Justice
The appellant asserts the environmental review fails to adequately consider the relevant Environmental Justice issues when considering the impacts of the project on the community. Environmental Justice is defined by California law as the fair treatment of people of all races, incomes, and ethnicity with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (Government Code, Section 65040.12[e]). Addressed in the City’s General Plan, the Environmental Justice Element contains Objectives and Policies that set actionable targets that guide policy decisions in the City. Examples of some of the noted policies include creating land use patterns that encourage people to travel in methods other than personal motor vehicles, increasing public transit availability, requiring vegetative barriers and increased tree canopies to benefit disadvantaged communities to list a few.
Environmental Justice (EJ) while not a direct CEQA mandated discussion, has been considered by the Planning Commission as a part of the project review and approval. The project is neither impeding the application of the relevant policies or objectives or imposing greater risk to a disadvantaged community. The appellant infers the project fails to adequately address (EJ) Objectives and Policies such as:
•Reduce pollution exposure and improve air quality.
•Create land use patterns that encourage people to walk, bike, or use public transit to reduce emissions from mobile sources.
•Mitigate impacts of pollution and separate pollution sources from sensitive land uses. •Require setbacks and vegetative barriers within City rights-of-way between new industrial and developments and sensitive land uses, such as residents in the area. •Improve tree canopy and promote green infrastructure development in disadvantaged communities.
•Encourage new development to include a healthy food supply or edible garden, or to be located within a quarter to half mile of a healthy food supply, where feasible and appropriate.
4 0
0 9
As demonstrated by studies provided, the proposed development: would not exceed local air quality regulations and requirements; accounts for and encourages the use of public transportation with the development of new roadways, which will include bike paths, where there are currently dirt roads; is not adjacent to or near any sensitive land uses with the nearest residents approximately 2,000 ft. to the west on the opposite side of U.S.
Highway 395; includes an extensive landscape design that includes greater than 100 trees; and does not impede access to future food supplies by developing an industrial land use within an area zoned for industrial use.
Conclusion
Staff disagrees with the appellant’s position, as their concerns were addressed during the Planning Commission review and no new evidence was presented in the appeal application. With the implementation of the conditions of approval contained in the Planning Commission approval, the adoption of all required environmental mitigation measures from the project’s environmental review, and implementation of the latest California Building Code requirements, staff finds that the Planning Commission did not error in their decision to approve the project.
Should the City Council concur with City staff's assessment of the action taken by the Planning Commission, appropriate findings have been included in Resolution No. 25-015 as outlined in the “Recommendation” section of this report. However, should the City Council seek to modify the decision of the Planning Commission, findings should be made to the contrary and shall be stated for the record.
Attachments:
Attachment A. Aerial Image
Attachment B. City Council Resolution No. 25-015
Attachment C. Appeal Application – January 15, 2025
Attachment D. Applicant Response to Appeal – February 3, 2025 Attachment E. Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. P-24-055 Attachment F. Planning Commission Staff Report & Attachments – January 8, 2025 Attachment G. Planning Commission Meeting Executive Summary & Verbatim Minutes